if the fourth Commandment be in force they cannot be obliged to keep the Lords day Is it not an even wager that not doubting the fourth Commandment to be in force as they are told they shall keep the Saturday which if it be in force they ought to keep rather then the Lords day which finding no reason for it because they are told none they will presently imagine to be a Popish custome I know there is one argument which is very plausible to induce well meaning Christians into that zeal which we see they have for the strict keeping of the Lords day which they call the Sabbath Because this opinion will oblige the world to exercise more works of godlinesse and to abstain from more of those debauches which Festivals occasion in vulgar people then otherwse To which for the present I will say onely this That having showed the truth to be as it is I can oblige all Christians to believe that Gods glory and the advancement of his service cannot be grounded well but upon the truth And therefore I may well demand their patience till I come by and by to show the ground of the mistake which they are carried away with to think that Gods glory and service is not more plentifully provided for by the Laws and customes of the Catholick Church then by strict keeping the Sabbath upon a false ground which hindring the effect of those Laws by consequence hinders Gods service But now all this being setled what is there remaining to alledge why Christians should be bound to keep the Lords day but the act of the Apostles by virtue whereof it came into force among all Christians in all Churches For it would be too ridiculous to allege that it is grounded upon those Scriptures whereby it appeareth that it was kept under the Apostles either as a reason sufficient or as distinct from the authority of the Apostles For these Scriptures being the Scriptures of the Apostles we can derive no authority from them but that which we first suppose in the Apostles I suppose here that no man will say that our Lords appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection upon that day was enough to make it a Law or evidence that it was so made unlesse his Apostles could testifie that he appeared to that purpose As for the rest if it may by circumstance appear that under the Apostles they did assemble to the service of God upon the Lords day will it therefore follow that all Chistians are bound to do the same Or can any more then this appear by that which I alledged out of the Apostles writings If there could the writings of the Apostles being their act as much as any act whereby they could declare an intent to oblige the Church there will be nothing to bind it to keep the Lords day but the authority of the Apostles But he that will give his own common reason leave to speak shall hear it say that it is not their words that oblige us to it but the originall and universall custome of the Church evidencing that they used to celebrate that day with an intent to introduce the obligation of it into the Church For of this original and universal custome having as yet found no question made on any side I hold it superfluous to take pains to make evidence of that which no man questions When Justine the Martyr presenting to the Empire an Apology for all Christans declareth that their custome was to assemble on the Lords day to serve God with the offices of Christianity which there he describeth had it not been to abuse himself and the Empire to declare that for the custome of all Christians which was indeed the custom of some but of others not Whither Easter was to be kept upon the fifteenth day of the first Moon upon which our Lord suffered or upon the next Lords day upon which he rose again was a dispute in the Church as ancient as the Apostles The former custome having been delivered to the Churches of Asia by S. John the later to the West by S. Peter and S. Paul But what ground could there be for this dispute had not the first day of the week been honoured and observed above the rest in regard of our Lords rising again Certainly the Eâ—ionites were one of the ancientest sects thar rose up against the Church and they as Eusebius Eccles Hist III. 27. keeping the Sabbath as the Jews and because the Jews kept it observing also the Lords day because the Christians kept it It is true that among the Eastern Christians the Saturday was observed for the service of God many ages after condescension to the Jews in regard whereof the observation of Moses law was in use after Christ in some parts of the Church more in some lesse was quite out of date But that is no argument that the Lords day was not kept when the Sabbath was kept to them who see S. Paul keep the Lords day Act. XX. 7. within the time of compliance with the Jewes For the offices which God is served with by the Church are pleasing to him at all times as well as in all places whereas the keeping of the Sabbath upon any day but a Saturday would have been a breach of his Law For when the other Festivals of the Jews are called Sabbaths in the Law that is not to say that the Sabbath was kept upon them for I have showed you two severall measures of rest due upon them by the Law but that they participated much of the nature of the Sabbath and therefore may be called with an addition such or such Sabbaths but not absolutely the Sabbath Therefore when Christians afterwards continued the custome of serving God upon the Sabbath that is the Saturday it is to be understood that they served God with the offices of Christianity not with the rest of the Jews Sabbath If it be further demanded whither the obligation of the Lords day do not depend upon the precepâ— of the Sabbath so that it may be called with an addition the Sabbath of Christians though not absolutely the Sabbath because that nâ—me is possessed already by the Saturday in the language of all Christians as well as Jews till men affected an abuse in the name to bring their mistake into mens minds To this I answer that if the Lords day had no dependance upon the precept of the Sabbath we could not give a reason why one day of seven is observed For the choice of the number could not come by chance And I cautioned afore that the Resurrection of Christ was as sufficient a reason why the Church should serve God on the Sunday as the creation of the world was why the Synagogue should serve God on the Saturday But this dependance was not immediate because I showed also that this was not enough to introduce the obligation upon us The act of the Apostles intervening was the means to make the obligation necessary
time the place the maner and form the ceremonies and solemnities whereby the celebration of Church offices is either already determined by Gods Law or remains determinable by the Law of the Church And this I cannot do better then beginning with the times of divine service and considering what Laws of God what Laws of the Church all Christians ought to be tied to in that point whence it may appear what may be the subject of Reformation in it Where I find it requisite in the first place to debate by what right the first day of the week called Sunday is set apart for the service of God under Christianity There is an opinion too well known amongst us that the first day of the week is kept by Christians in virtue of the fourth Commandment which obliged the Jews to keep the seventh day of the week Which opinion if it be true they have some ground for confining the service of God to it But it cannot be maintained without two assumptions The first That the seventh day in the fourth Commandment signifies not the seventh day of the week on which God rested from creating any more but one of the seven dayes The second That the resurrection of Christ upon the first day of the week is a reason that necessarily determines all Christians to do that which they are bound to do on one day of the seven upon the first and none else Neither of which is true though the later have farre the more appearance of truth in it For it is manifest that the will of God may be having obliged the Jewes to keep one day in seven to oblige Christians to keep one day in six or lesse unesse it be otherwise determined by some commandment of Gods Now it appeareth that the first day of the week was kept in the times of the Apostles our Saviour having peared unto them after his Resurrection upon that day Joh. XIX 26. Act. XX. â— 1 Cor. XVI 2. Apoc. I. 10. But of any precept to make this a Law to all Christians nothing appears in the Scriptures of the New Testament Again it may be said That the Gospel requireth more plentiful fruits of obedience then the Law And therefore if the Law required one day of seven for the service of God that the Gospel requires more Nor will it concern me here to prove that this opinion is true It is more then enough that I can say that before this novelty came into England it cannot appear that ever any Christian thought otherwise For I argue no more in this place but that the rising of our Lord upon the first day of the week doth not necessarily determine the Church to keep one day of the seven as the command of God doth For had God commanded one day of seven to be kept under the Gospel as under the Law there had been no room for further consideration But so long as there is onely a reason on the one side That the Resurrection to Christians is as the Creation to Jews And a reason on the other side That it becomes Christians in this as in all to do more then Jews I cannot deny that there is a sufficient reason for him that hath power of determining that which God hath not determined to appoint the first day of the week but I utterly deny that there is any Law of God before the act of this power to determine it And the reason is plain For in maters of this nature there may be sufficient reason for several determinations because it is not the substance but the circumstance of that which is by nature necessarily good and Gods service Again supposing that Christians are bound to keep one day of seven for Gods service may I not ask why the passion of Christ should not determine them to keep the sixth as well as the Resurrection the first day of the week Especially in the sense of them who think they have reason to feast on good Friday and to celebrate their Fasts on the Lords day For if the resurrection of Christ be no reason to make the day thereof Festivall nor his Passion why we should rather fast on the day of it certainly where both cannot be kept the one concerns us as much as the other do and therefore there is as much reason to keep this as that This to the later of the two assumptions But in the former there is no colour of truth Nor do I see how any thing can be more strange then this That so many men professing learning and zeal to the Scriptures alone should read in the Commandment that God resâ—ed the seventh day from making the world and therefore commanded the seventh day to be kept holy And understand by all this onely that God would have one day of seven not that day of the seven on which himself rested Unlesse it be still more strange that men of common sense should believe that the Jews were not tyed by Gods Law to keep the day on which God rested but onely one of seven so that the keeping of the seventh was not by Gods Law but by mans For if it be once granted that God commanded them to keep not onely one day of seven but in particular the seventh how can any common sense understand that Christians by the same command should be tied to keep the first day of the week If prejudice and faction went not under the colour of zeal to the Scriptures it would appear to be zeal towards our selves and ours that offers such violence to our own sense in seeking to impose this sense upon the Scriptures In plain terms there can be nothing more manifest to Christians in the Law of Moses then it is manifest that the precept of the Sabbath is a ceremonial Precept figuring the rest of Christians from the bondage of sin by doing for the future God works here in the Church militant and from the bondage of pain when that rest is become perfect in the triumphant Church of the World to come And all this by the work of this precept that is by resting from bodily labour in the Land of promise in remembrance of the bondage of Aegypt which the Israelites had escaped For in Deutronomy V. 15. this is the reason alleged why they where to rest Ezek. XX. 12. Ex. XXXI 31. I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign between me and them that they might know that it is I the Lord their God that sanctifieth them And therefore the Apostle Heb. IV. 4. 5 9 10. showeth the seventh day to signifie the rest of the Land of pâ—oâ—iâ—e For saith he in one place it is said God rested on the seventh day from all his work And here Psalm XCV 11. if they shall enter into my rest For he that is entred into his rest hath ceased from his own works as God from his Therefore there remaineth another rest to the people of God as the Apostle argueth by the same reason as
how turn ye back againe to those weake and beggarly rudiments to which ye desire to be in bondage againe Ye observe dayes and monthes and seasons and yeares For the observation of legall Festivals according to the moneths and seasons of the yeares is indeed obedience to that God by whose Law the difference is made But when their conceits of themselves transports them to imagine that God esteems them for these things whereby he hath differenced them from other nations and that it cannot stand with that esteem that he should receive the Gentiles into favour upon undertaking that spirituall obedience which Christ publisheth not tying that to the same Worthily are they called by the Apostle weak and beggerly rudiments that did onely prepare them to this obedience by tying them to the true God and his outward service And is not the precept of circumcision in the first place which obliges to all the precepts and intitles to all the promises of this nature Hear S. Paul to the Philipians III. 3. 6. among whom this leaven began to spread◠We are the circumcision saith he that serve God in the Spirit and glory in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh Though I have confidence in the flesh also If any other man seem to have confidence in the flesh I more Circumcised the eighth day of the race of Israel of the tribe of Benjamin an Hebrew of Hebrews also concerning the Law a Pharisee as concerning zeal one that persecuted the Church as concerning righteousnesse that is by the law blamelesse Are not all these priviledges of that nation by virtue of Moses Law and of circumcision which obliges to it And is not that confidence of righteousnesse which is by the Law which S. Paul disclaimes though he claime as good a title to it as any Jew beside I say is not that it which moved the Jews out of zeal to the Law to persecute the Church And can that righteousnesse which moveth to persecute Christianity be thought to presuppose it Therefore what S. Paul meanes by confidence in the flesh we must learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews IX 9. 10. Where the tabernacle is called a Parable or figure for the then present time in which gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not profit him that ministred as to conscience being onely imposed upon meates and drinkes and severall Baptismes and righteousnesses of the flesh untill the time of reformation came Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those carnall and bodily rites which obtaine that carnall righteousnesse which answereth the carnall and earthly promises of the Law and were mistaken by them for meanes of obtaining resurrection unto life and the world to come which under the Law so given they had neverthelesse just cause to expect though not in consideration of such observations Another argument hereof we have from S. Paul which to me seems peremptory in that he opposeth that grace and faith whereby Christians are justified to those works which Gentiles by the Law and light of nature were able to do Which works certainly do not suppose Christianity Ephes II. 8 9. For by grace are ye saved through the Faith and that not of your selves it is Gods gift Not of workes least any man should glory There is nothing moremanifest then that the Church of the Ephesians when S. Paul wrote this Epistle was gathered of those that had been Gentiles as you may see by Ephes II. 11 12. III. 1 6. Wherefore when S. Paul sayes to them being presently Christians that they were not saved by works least they should glory it is manifest that his meaning is that their conversation before the Gospel came could not move and oblige God to provide them the meanes of Salvation which it tendereth Againe S. Paul exhorting Timothy to suffer hardship for the Gospel according to the power of God who saith he hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and the grace that is given us in Christ Jesus before everlasting ages 2 Tim. I. 9. speaketh of the same Ephesians whose Pastor Timothy was at that time But most fully Titus III. 4 7. But when the goodnesse and love to men of God our Saviour appeared not of workes which we had done in righteousnesse saved he us but according to his own mercy by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed upon us richly through our Saviour Jesus Christ that being justied by his grace we might become heirs of everlasting life according to hope For that those whom Titus had in charge were Christians converted for the most part of Gentiles appeares by the Apostles words Titus I. 10. For there be many and those rebellious vaine talkers and cheaters especially they of the circumcision whose mouthes must be stopped And in the words that goe next afore the passage alledged there is a lively description of the conversation of the Gentiles For of Jewes he could not have said We also were once foolish disobedient wandring out of the way in slaved to divers lusts and pleasures living in malice and envy hatefull and hating one another Titus III. 3. Seeing then that it concerns the Gentiles as well as the Jews which the Apostle argues that men are not justified by works but by grace and by faith it is manifest that he meanes such works as the Gentiles might pretend to no lesse then the Jews and that while they were Gentiles because he speakes of that estate in which the Gospel overtook them And therefore when S. Paul denies that men are justified by works he meanes those works which men are able to do before they are acquainted with the preaching of the Gospel whether by the light and Law of nature or by the meere instruction of Moses Law For though the law of Moses containe in it many morall precepts of true and inward and spirituall obedience the observation whereof is indeed the worship of God in Spirit and in truth Yet we must consider that the same precepts are part of the law of nature written in the hearts even of Gentiles And we must consider further that these precepts may be obeyed and done two severall wayes First as farre as the outward work and the kinde and object of it goes and further as farre as the reason of it derived from the will and command of God and the intention thereof directed to his honour and service Which purpose of heart cannot be in any man but him that loves God above this world making him the utmost end of all his actions I say then that of those morall precepts of Moses law which are parts of the law of nature the outward and bodily observation goes no further then the observation of other rituall and civil precepts of the same law And therefore is to be comprised in the account of those works of the Law by which S. Paul denies deservedly that we
forfeiture may be an instruction to them if once they believe that it was by just Law This justice then and the ground of it is the onely reason why the predecessors fault is truly said to be imputed to his posterity But between God and mankind in the forfeit of Adam by the precept given him there cannot be understood any contract by virtue whereof posterity that did not the act can be liable to the punishment of it And therefore we must distinguish between the imputing of one mans sinne to another formally so as to punish a man for another mans sin which if he concurred to the act may be just otherwise not And effectively in the nature of a meritorious cause which reduceth it self to the effective when in consideration of one mans sinne another is made subject to that evil which he should have been free from otherwise And according to this distinction though the posterity of Adam is liable to much evill in consideration of his sin yet is not this evil properly the punishment of it but the effect of the same will of God in propagating mankind with the staine of concupiscence which takes place in maintaining understanding creatures to do all that sinne which God might have hindred them from doing had he not thought it better to draw good out of evil then utterly to prevent it And this is no more then the correspondence between the first and second Adam which S. Paul proceeds upon Rom. V. inferreth For I have shewed already that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed to any man formally and immediately so as to say that any man is justified by Gods deputing our Lord Christ for his benefit personally excluding those for whom he was not deputed And I have shewed againe that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to all Christians effectively and in the nature of a meritorious cause In as much as have shewed that those helps of grace without which no man is able to imbrace Christianity as it is to be imbraced are granted by God in consideration of his merits and sufferings laid out to that purpose And that which remaineth for me to shew in due place is this That that disposition which qualifieth for the promises of the Gospel being brought to passe in any man by those helps obliges not God to grant those promises which the Gospel rewards it with by any worth in it self but by virtue of Gods grace in consideration of Christs merits and sufferings laid out to that purpose By which correspondence it may appear that those who can perswade themselves that the posterity of Adam are bound to answer for the sin of his fall as their own act cannot stand bound to acknowledge a Christian to whom the merits of the sufferings of Christ are imputed upon the same terms obliged to any condition upon which his right to the promises of the Gospel can depend being once due to him by virtue of Christs merits and sufferings deputed to be personally his As on the contrary those that acknowledge the merits and sufferings of Christ to be justly imputed to the persons of those whom he was sent to redeem cannot stand bound to acknowledge the posterity of the first Adam to be liable to concupiscence by his fall seeing the coming of Christ for the redemption of those whom God thereby should please to exempt from the common imputation thereof would be no lesse effectuall to the voiding of that condemnation which it contracted then supposing what ever disease of our nature concupiscence coming in by his fall may signifie So that supposing the immediate and personall imputation of the fall of Adam to all his posterity of the merits and suffering of Christ to all those for whom they are appointed the evil which mankind suffereth by the meanes of Adams fall is properly the punishment of his sinne the good which it receiveth by the meanes of Christs sufferings is the reward of it nor can have any dependance upon any act of his free will Otherwise then as that which God worketh by him not as that which he requireth at his hands But supposing the meritorious imputation of Adams fall and Christs righteousnesse the evil which his posterity lies under by meanes of it will not be properly the punishment of sinne because not the recompense of the evill which a man does by the evil which he suffers though properly a penalty because an evil inflicted in consideration of sinne Now supposing that Adam understood the precept In the day thou eatest thereof shalt thou die the death to condemn his posterity as well as himself it is manifest notwithstanding that the obligation thereof was not by virtue of his accepting of it and contracting upon it but originall by virtue of that being which God had bestowed and therefore taking hold of all his posterity on whom he meant to bestow it Wherefore though it is handsomly called by S. Augustine and others a Covenant of God with mankind which being transgressed by Adam forfeited the benefit thereof to his posterity Yet to speak properly it was the meer appointment of God in that which lay in his power and right to appoint that the uprightnesse wherein Adam was created should descend to his posterity he continuing in it otherwise the propagation thereof should be maintained the uprightnesse failing Nor can any man think strange that Christianity should oblige us to believe this if we consider the many and strange extravagances which those who either acknowledge not Christianity or have fallen from it do runne into by not resting in it The Epicureans and as some think the Peripateticks denying Providence the Stoicks Free-will and so the same providences The Pythagoreans whom the Platonicks are intangled with and the ancient Gnosticks Marcionites and Manichees manifestly imitate setting up two Gods one the author of evil the other of good the Heathen worshipping in effect the devil whom those Sects set up under the Name of author of evil the Jews and Mahumetanes if they have any thing to say to the originall of evil in mankind to whose use God hath commended the world being obliged to say that it comes from the fall of Adam Pelagians and Socinians not confessing what Jewes and Mahumetanes cannot deny but not able to give any account why the noble creature of mankind should be so overspread with evil coming from a good God and accountable for his own actions The question thus stated and Christianity tendring first the fall of bad angels and the seducing of Adam by their malice and in consequence thereunto of the greatest part of mankind to the worship of evil angels by whom they were seduced excepting those whom God dealt with by his word ministred by angels first then by his Sonne whose Gospel now is preached I suppose there is nothing wanting to evidence either the truth or obligation of it though those that preach it are not inabled to evidence why God pleased to suspend the
can be produced to depose for the Sacrifice of the Eucharist than the sense of those Scriptures of the New Testament already handled which are in a maner all that have any mention of it will inferr and allow There is much noise made with the Priesthood of Melchisedeck of whom wee reade Gen. XIV 19 24. And Melchisedeck King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for hee was the Priest of the most High God And hee blessed him saying Blessed be Abraham of the most High God which owneth heaven and earth In reference whereunto the Psalmist speaking of Christ Psal CX 4. The Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck And the Apostle taking for granted that hee is a figure of Christ in the mystical sense Ebr. VII 13. argueth the voiding of the Levitical Law from the purpose of setting up another Priesthood declared by the Psalm But no where in all that Chapter which is all spent about the Exposition of it so much as intimateth the Priesthood of Christ to consist in any thing but in offering up to God in heaven his own body and bloud sacrificed upon the Crosse to make expiation for the sins of his people and to obtain of God that grace and assistance that comfort and deliverance which their necessities from time to time may require Be it granted neverthelesse that seeing of necessity Melchisedeck is the figure of Christ those things which Melchisedeck is related to have done are also necessarily figures of things done by our Lord Christ For otherwise were not the mystical sense of the Old Testament a laughing stock to unbelievers if it should hold in nothing but that which the Spirit of God hath expounded in the New Testament by our Lord and his Apostles I have therefore to the best advantage translated the words of Moses For not and hee was the Priest of the living God That whoso will may argue thereupon that his bringing forth bread and wine was an act of his Priesthood Which if I would deny no man can constrain mee by virtue of these words to acknowledg But I cannot therefore allow that Translation which sayes Obtulit panem vinum that as Priest hee offered bread and wine in sacrifice to God The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so evidently signifying protulit not obtulit hee brought forth not that hee offered that hee brought forth bread and wine to refrâ—sh Abraham â—nd his people returning weary from the slaughter of the Kings not that hee offered them in sacrifice to God as his Priest the mention of his Priesthood râ—ther advancing the reason why hee blessed them than why hee fed them As both Moses in the words next afore and the Apostle also Ebr. VII 1. intimateth or declareth the intent why hee brought them forth Though if I should grâ—nt that custome which was common to all Idolaters to have been in forâ—e under the Law of nature because wee see it retained and inâ—cted by the Law of Moses not to taste of any thing till some part of it had been dedicated to God in the nature of first-fruits to the sanctifying of the whole till when it was not to be touched I say though I should grant this for a reâ—son why hee may be thought to have offered bread and wine to God not why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated protulit hee brought forth no man would have cause to thank mee for any advantage from thence For still the correspondence between Melchisedeck â—nd our Lord Christ would lye in this that our Lord by appointing this Sacrâ—ment brings forth bread and wine to strengthen the peoâ—lâ— of Abraham in their warfare against the powers of darknesse as in the dayes of his flâ—sh hee fed those that attended upon his doctrine least they should faint in their travail Now this will first inferr that it is bread and wine which our Lord feeds us with in the Eucharist And again that it hath the virtue of sustaining us by being made the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament by virtue of the consecration past upon it Which is all that which I say to a hair that by being made a Sacrament it becomes the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be feasted upon by Christians In like maner be it granted that the words of the Prophet Malachy I. 11. From the rising of the Sun to his going down my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure meat offering For my name shall be great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts is a Prophesie of the institution of this Sacrâ—ment because it is contained in those kindes of breâ—d and wine which served for meat and drink offerings in the Law of Moses But this being granted what shall wee do with the incense and the meat offering which the Prophet speaks of unlâ—sse wee say that they signifie that which corresponds to the meâ—t and drink offerings of the Law and their incense under the Gospel And will not thâ—t prove to be the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which God under the Gospel is served with by all Nations Though those prayers and prâ—â—es of God being by the institution of the Eucharist limited and determined to be such as the celebration thereof requires it is no inconvenience nay it will be necessâ—ry to grant that the sacrifice thereof is fore-told by these words not signifying neverthelesse the nature of it to require any thing more thâ—n is exprâ—ssed by the premises Be the same therefore said if you please of all the Sacrifices of the Old Law of all the Prophesies in which the service to be rendred to God in the New Testament is described by the offering of Sacrifices As for the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria John IV. 23. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth For the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Though I grant as afore that this is fulfilled by the celebration of the Eucharist when once wee suppose our Lord to have limited the worship of God under the Gospel to the form of it yet there can be no consideration of a sacrifice signified by these words which neither suppose nor expresse the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse the Eucharist no way bearing the nature of a sacrifice but as it is the same with it But for the same reason and by the same correspondence between the sacrifices of the Law and that of Christs Crosse it may be evident that it is not nor can be any disparagement to the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ upon the Crosse to the full and perfect satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the world which it hath made that the Eucharist should be
wee have received from our Lord Christ and his Apostles But if from hence any man would inferr that seeing the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say the body and bloud of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the Consecration is a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice for the Congregation there present for their relations and for the Church therefore it is so whether they proceed to receive the Eucharist or not therefore it is so whether they proceed to offer up the Eucharist present by their prayers for the necessities of the Church or not therefore it is so whether they pray with the Church or noâ— the consequence will straight appear to fail because those reasons which make it such a Sacrifice make it so in order to the receiving or to the offering of it by the prayers of the Church in behalf of the Church It is well enough known what opinions and abuses in the use and concerning the virtue of Masses had vogue under the dark time of the School though noâ— authorized by the Catholick Church For in regard the Eucharist can pretend no virtue by the nature of the work impertinent to any spiritual effect but meerly by the institution of Christ the efficacy thereof ex opere operaâ—o according to the language of those dayes and by virtue of the very â—oâ—ke was so extended as to take effect without any good motion in them thâ—t celebrate it And the intent of the Priest whose act the consecration was tâ—ken to be was thought to extend it to whom and to what he pleased And â—â—â—â— so farre from requiring that any but the Priest should communicate that even at this day it is not thought necessary by the looser sort of that side that the people should understand what the Priest does or sayes much lâ—sse assâ—t him with their devotions the intent of the Priest which the Canon it selfe alwaies extends to all that are present serving to give it virtue On the other side how hath this been taken construed As if every Mass pretended to sacrifice Christ a new who by offering himselfe once hath perfited for ever those who are sanctified as saith the Apostle Heb. X. 14. And therefore as if every Mass did challenge the virtue of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross And it is true the properties and efâ—ect of things signified are in some certain sense truly attributed to the signs But he that inlarges his Language beyond that sense may give and he that understands not the limitations requisite may take offense when there is no need Otherwise the reasons of those limitations are evident enough to save any sober and charitable men either from inflanâ—ing or taking up offenses For common sense which tells all men that what is once done can never be done again obliges them to understand an abatement in the property of that Language which attributes the sacrificing of Christ to a Priest because once done upon the Crosse it can never be done agâ—in Neither can it be in reason supposed that he who inflames the improperty of his Language intends therefore to renounce the common faith concerning the redemption of man-kind by the sacrifice of the Cross But when all derive all virtue in the Mass from it to take such Language for equalling the Mass to it will require a great lust to maintain partiality in the Church And make but once the consecrating and offering of the Eucharist for the necessities of the whole Church by the prayers of those who celebrate it to be the act of the respective assembly by the ministry of him whom the Church deputes for the purpose it will easily appear what follows For the virtue thereof will still be ex opere operato in opposition to the Sacraments of the old Old Law The spirituall intent whereof not being discerned by all because not openly preached at that time the spirituall effect of them could not be attributed to the common work but to the particular intent of those that belonged to the Gospel under the Law which is a true ground of opposition between opus operatum and opus operantis The work meerly done and done by such a one Besides seeing the truth of Christs body and blood is eaten and drunk by living faith without the Sacrament He that believes that God instituted not the Sacrament to no purpose though he abhorre to think that the effect thereof can be had without any good motion must of necessity allow the devotion which a living faith is exercised with in assisting the celebration of it an effect by virtue of that work which without it it cannot challenge As for the effect of the Prayers which it is offered with it is not to be ascribed to the quality of the Priest and therefore in that regard also it may be ascribed to the work it selfe not to the quality of him that doth it But seeing the common obligation of all Christians extendeth their Prayers to all necessities of Christs Church it will not lye in the intent either of the Priest or of the whole assembly whose act more properly it is to make it more beneficial to particular Christians then it can be thought that God accepteth the charity and devotion of particular Christians more particularly for their particular relations As for the mater of private Masses and the assistance of the people with their devotion as well as presence of an unknown tongue in Gods service of the extending of the benefit thereof to the dead Thus much being said generally here I referre the rest to their own places In fine what other reason soever can be pretended by any that shall make it his interest to maintain not to excuse the abuses of the Church of Rome why the Eucharist should be counted such a Sacrifice if it be not contained in that which hath been said will easily be wiped off by that which hath been said Those Scriptures which wee ground our selves upon when wee make the Eucharist a Sacriâ—â—ce being the onely ground to determine though not the onely means to evidence for what reason and to what purpose it is to be counted such a Sacrifice For how much regard soever wee ought to have to the consent of the Church in this point as without doubt if in any then in this without doubt the agreement and correspondence visible to common sense betweâ—n the original practice and sense of the Church and that which hath been alleged out of the Scriptures will be evidence enough of the right reason or reasons for which the Eucharist is not or is to be esteemed a propitiatory Sacrifice There is no man can thrust his nose into the writings of the Fathers even of the first times but hee shall finde the Oblations of the faithfull that are once deputed to the celebration of the Eucharist called Sacrifices in that regard This consideration therefore is not owned by them that strive most to make the Eucharist properly a propitiatory Sacrifice
the carnal rest of the Jewes is a figure of the spiritual rest of Christians in grace here in glory in the world to come And therefore when he is afraid least he should have laboured in vain upon the Galatians IV. 10. because they observed days and moneths years when he teacheth the Colossians II. 16. not to be over-ruled in the mater of new Moons or Sabbath When he sheweth the Romanes XIV 5. that they who esteemed on one day before another were weak Christians He did not mean to remove the obligation of the seventh day upon the first but to show that Christians may as well think themselves bound in conscience to be circumcised as to be under the precept of the Sabbath And let me understand how we can be bound by the precept of the Sabbath and not be bound to that measure of rest which the precept of the Sabbath limiteth For the constitution which the Jews go by this day is so grounded in the Text that it is not possible to imagine that ever it was practised otherwise the leter of the Law manifestly distinguishing between worke and servile workâ— and permitting the dressing of meat upon the first and last dayes of the Passovâ—r Pentecost and the feast of Tabernacles but forbidding servile work that is to say such work as slâ—ves were imployed about for their Masters advantage but upon the Sabbath and day of atonement forbidding all work that is not onely servile work but the dressing of meat upon those days whereupon comes the express prohibition of kindling fire on the Sabbath not for the time that they lived in the wildernesse but as the Law expresseth in all their habitations Ex. XII 16. XXXV 30. XVI 23. Levit. XXIII 3. 7 8 21 25 28. Numb XXIX 1 7. And therefore Deut. XVI 8. where for brevities sake he saith of the Passover No worke shall be done in it The Greek adds out of Exodus and Leviticus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what shall be dressed for meat And therefore when our Lord goes to dâ—ne with a Pharisee Luc. XIV 1. it is no marvail that he is invited upon a Festivall on which they hold themselves still bound to eat the best meat and drink the best wine and put on the clothes they have But he knew his entertainment must be upon meats dreâ—t the day before And therefore he not onely reproveth the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who for their own profit to draw their Oxe or their Ass out of the pit could bâ—lâ— it and in a charitable cause of healing a man stood upon it But further he showes it to be a meer positive precept of the Law when by the right of a Prophet he commandeth the lame man whom he had cured to cary away his bed upon the Sabbath Joh. V. 10. the Prophet of the old Law having forbidding to cary any burthen upon the Sabbath Jer. XVII 21. 22. And the reason my Father still worketh and so do I worke inâ—erreth that as the rest of God was not from bodily labour so neither is it the rest from bodily labour which he or his Gospel intendeth I conclude therefore that which will seem strange to unskilful people That the onely thing commanded by the leter of the fourth Commandement is to rest from bodily labour upon the seventh day of the week on which God rested from whence it is called the Sabbath But by the mysticall sense of it under the New Testament to rest from our own works of sinne here that we may attain to the rest of God in the world to come And I cannot see how a more evident argument can be expected for this then the extending of the precept to cattel and strangers not onely to children who otherwise are not under the precept For strangers in the Law that is those that worshipped the true God alone but were not circumcised who are therefore alwayes translated Conuerts in the Syriack to wit from Idols were onely tyed to seven precepts which all the Sons of Noe had received from him Whereof that of the Sabbath was none And therefore it is not they that are commanded to rest but Gods people are commanded that they shall not work as they are commanded that their Cattel shall not work I know there is a strong Argument against this in vulgar esteem which to me makes no difficulty at all that they are commanded to sanctifie or keep holy the Sabbath But he that admits the true difference between the Law and the Gospel must admit a legall as well as a spirituall holinesse And I would know what holinesse there is in offering a brute beast to God in sacrifice that is not in sitting still on the seventh day Both being stamped with Gods command and the rest of the Body signifying the rest of the soul from sinne which is very holy as the sacrifice is holy because it signifieth the holinesse of our Lord Christ or of them whom he sanctifieth The Apostle teacheth us thus to distinguish when he saith Heb. IX 11. If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of a red cow sprinkling the purified sanctifieth to the purity of the flesh For the holiness it procureth is but the capacity of free conversation amongst the people of the true God as to the leter of the Law And bodily rest upon the Sabbath is a full profession of the true God which made heaven and earth and brought his people out of Egypt I do not deny that the service of God was commanded by the Law upon the Sabbath But not by this precept You have an order for publick Assemblies on the Sabbath as well as on other Festivals Levit. XXIII you have an order for what sacrifices should be offered on each of them Num. XXVIII But had the Law gone no further then the fourth Commandment the Jews had not been tied to those precepts I acknowledge further that they were bound to serve God with other offices such as are common to them and us both upon the Sabbath as upon other Festivals when they had Synagogues or means to assemble themselves otherwise as Abenezra observes out of 2 King IV. 23. For had it not been the custome to resorâ— to the Prophets at the Festivals he would not have said Why wilt thou go to the Prophet It is neither new Moon nor Sabbath And the order for this which we see by the acts of the Apostles and the Gospels as well as by the Jews Constitutions no man will deny to have obliged them by virtue of the Law But not by the leter of it which had it been precisely followed the objection of Origen and other of the Fathers must have taken place and no man must have stirred out of the place where he should be found at the coming in of the Sabbath But in regard there was alwayes in that people a sense of that spiritual service of God which these carnal precepts tended to therefore was there provided a power
and legall whereof before the ground onely was reasonable But I do not mean this dependance to be the effect of the fourth Commandment onely which prescribeth onely bodily rest as I have showed but of these appendences of it whereby the Assemblies of the Jews and their sacrifices for that day are inacted For because they were to serve God upon the Sabbath it was certainly reasonable in regard of our Lords resurrection that Christians should serve God upon the first day of the Week If any man in this regard will call the Lords day the Christians Sabbath or the like I find no fault with it nay I find it so called by the Christians of Aethiopia in Scaliger VII de Emend Temporum Provided he conne my opinion that thanks which it deserves for leaving no further room to unstable spirits to imagine as some great Masters have done that it is in the power of Churches or of Christian Powers â—rotecting them to chuse another day of seven or of less then seven for Gods publick service For not being out of the reach of such power immediately by virtue of the fourth Commandment as I and they both have shewed it is beyond the reaâ—h of it by virtue of the Apostles authority and the act of it And now it is time to declare the sense of the Catholick Church derived from the doctrine and writings of the Apostles to be this concerning the times of Gods service That the offices thereof being alwayes acceptable to God and seasonable so that they be orderly done it is the duty of the Church to provide that they be as frequently celebrated as the occasions of the world will allow not by particular Christians alone but at the common assemblies of the Church Whereby it may appear how injurious and prejudicial to the service of God the zele of those is who challenging the whole Sunday for the service of God by virtue of the fourth Commandement seem thereupon to take it for granted that there ought to be no order for the publick service of God upon other Festivals and times of Fasting appointed by the Church nor which is more for the dayly celebration of divine service in the Church There hath been a pretense indeed that when the fourth Commandement saith Six dayes thou shalt labor and do all that thou hast to do It forbiddeth the Church to give any Rule of forbearing bodily labor for the exercise of Gods service But so ridiculous that even these who have the conscience to hold the conclusion have not the face to maintain the premises That form of speech manifestly importing no more than this That the present Law requires no more than keeping the first day of the week seeing it is manifest that by other Laws God intended to proceed further and to except other dayes from the bodily labor of his then people for his service Thereupon it is manifest that the Synagogue proceeded likewise to except other dayes for which there rose occasions for the like purpose And truly those who think it a burthen to the duty of working for mens living that there should be an Order for the dayly serving of God in the Church having all them to attend it that are not prevented of it by necessary occasions may look upon the Jews and blush to consider that they as S. Jerome Epiphanius and Justine the Martyr assure us should assemble themselves thrice a day in their Synagogues to curse our Lord Christ which their own Constitutions not mentioning do provide for the service of God nevertheless but that it should be counted superstitious for Christians to meet for Gods service in publick unless it be on the Lords day Certainly the practice of the primitive Christians at Jerusalem signifies no such thing all the contribution there raised tending to no other purpose but that the Church might hold together in the doctrine of the Apostles and the service of God and celebration of the Eucharist Though they went also into the Temple and served God with the Jews whom they then hoped and intended to reduce unto Christianity But I will referr my self in this point as in that which follows to that which I have said in my Book of the service of God at the Assemblies of the Church Chap. VIII having received from no hand any maner of satisfaction in the least of it Whereby it will appear that the Church hath power to limit the times of Gods service upon this ground Because the occasions of the world suffer not Christians alwayes to attend it which so oft as the Church shall finde it possible they are bound to do And that the use of this power as it is justified by the practice of the whole Church so it is necessary to the advancement of godlinesse according to Christianity Nor can the effect thereof be superseded without hindring the service of God whatsoever the strict keeping of the Lords day may contribute to the same Those times of persecution succeeded to the primitive Church wherein it is altogether admirable to consider how it was possible to reduce the whole body of Christians to an orderly course of so frequent service of God as appeareth The difficulties of assembling themselves being so great as under persecution must needs be Therefore when the exercise of Christianity was free and peaceable when all Nations and Languages upon their conversion to Christianity had made it their business and set aside means by which the service of God might be daily celebrated and all men have opportunity to frequent the same so farr either as their occasions would give leave or their hearts to God minde them to frame their occasions to take away this order and to destroy the means of executing it as either superstitious or superfluous what is it else but that curse which the Jews in their Synagogues would have wished Christianity when they met to curse Christ And if all difference of dayes for the service of God being taken away by Christianity so that no office of it is at any time unacceptable as the offices of Judaism were abominable not upon their legal days And the Apostles have notwithstanding for orders sake that there might be a certain time inviolably dedicated to that purpose set aside the first day of the week for it shall wee question whether it was they that instituted the solemnity of Easter Holy-days and consequently of Whitsuntide in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord and the coming of the Holy Ghost or not For all the Lords dayes in the year have the mark that stands on them from that one on which our Lord rose again And since wee know that the difference about keeping Easter is as ancient as the Apostles and that there could have been no ground for it had not the Lords day born that mark at that time the question being onely when the Fast should end and the celebration of Easter come on can any doubt remain that the solemnity of